By way of a comment, Matthias writes:
DaveB
I’ve gone to the Enrie negative again, I measured the length from the tip of the middle finger to just above the knuckles at 95mm – which is almost identical to my own hand. If I then measure from the knuckle area to the upper edge of the hand wound, I measure about 50mm, which places the wound around the middle of the back of the hand. Looking at the Enrie negative up close, I also think – at least to my eye it looks like the back of the hand – not the wrist.
I’ve done this a few times now and come to the same conclusion – the wound is clearly in the middle of the hand, not the wrist as per the conventional wisdom.
Since DaveB and I clearly differ in opinion, it would be very good to hear other opinions.
Then this roles in from a reader via email:
I am still not convinced that Zugibe’s exit point was wrong. The circle on the left is where Barbet’s exit point is vs Zugibe’s on the right. I think Zugibe’s exit point fits the blood stain more. What do you think?
More opinions?
Click on the image above for a larger version.
The illustration above incorrectly identifies finger bones as carpal bones, whereas they are not even metacarpals (hand-bones). Charles Freeman added further comment to Matthias’ original one, and I have responded both to Charles and to Matthias there.
The picture has been skewed. The yellow title, “Carpal bones” is merely the full picture caption, and the green labels are the specific carpal bones
The labels are irrelevant. it is a nice Xray I found on the internet. the point I’am trying to make and has been largely ignored is this. It is clear from the overlay ( I matched the knuckles and fingers on both the shroud and the X-ray) the blood stain matches Zugibe’s exit point. Barbet’s exit point is too low to match the blood stain. I hope someone else would find an X-ray for a hand and can overlay it on the shroud and tell me where the error is instead of ignoring the point.
Buscar en Google:
-Sobre el espacio de Destot y algunas cosas más (1)
-Sobre el espacio de Destot y algunas cosas más (2)
Salen los primeros, son post míos con muy buenas radiografíasy otras imágenes (hacer clik para agrandar).
Carlos
A useful approach to this question might be to ask not where the nail is but how it got there. Yes, of course, a Roman soldier hammered it into place, but how does one go about doing that? More importantly, how does one do it efficiently and repeatedly on one of those days where the glory of Rome demands crucifying hundreds or even thousands of its enemies?
Like anyone with experience in law enforcement or the martial arts, I’ve learned, practiced, and employed my share of wrist locks. It’s worth keeping in mind that the victim’s hand was probably not in the neutral, relaxed position we see in x-rays or diagrams. Even if this is the Shroud of Christ and he willingly stretched out his hands to receive the nails, most victims of crucifixion would not go so willingly. So, the Romans would have had techniques for immobilizing the wrist and positioning the hand in the ‘ideal’ posture for their purposes. The effects of these would be to seriously distort the bones of the hand. The spaces between bones would have expanded in some areas and lessened in others.
I think this merits further study, if only because we know so little about how crucifixions were actually carried out. Granted, that’s an area of ‘lost knowledge’ that humanity is probably better off without, but it might help to clear up this issue. Now if I can just find someone willing to take x-rays while I apply various wrist locks to a volunteer…
Barbet carried out several experiments with amputated limbs and cadavers, most of them involving wrist nailing. Zugibe criticised his analysis claiming that Barbet’s wrist anatomy was incorrect, e.g. location of medial nerve and Destot space. However Zugibe’s analysis is also open to criticism despite his experiments with simulated crucifixion volunteers.